Move expansion of query macros in rustc_middle to rustc_middle::query
This moves the expansion of `define_callbacks!` and `define_feedable!` from `rustc_middle::ty::query` to `rustc_middle::query`.
This means that types used in queries are both imported and used in `rustc_middle::query` instead of being split between these modules. It also decouples `rustc_middle::ty::query` further from `rustc_middle` which is helpful since we want to move `rustc_middle::ty::query` to the query system crates.
Rename const error methods for consistency
renames `ty::Const`'s methods for creating a `ConstKind::Error` to be in the same naming style as `ty::Ty`'s equivalent methods.
r? `@BoxyUwU`
use implied bounds when checking opaque types
During opaque type inference, we check for the well-formedness of the hidden type in the opaque type's own environment, not the one of the defining site, which are different in the case of TAIT.
However in the case of associated-type-impl-trait, we don't use implied bounds from the impl header. This caused us to reject the following:
```rust
trait Service<Req> {
type Output;
fn call(req: Req) -> Self::Output;
}
impl<'a, Req> Service<&'a Req> for u8 {
type Output= impl Sized; // we can't prove WF of hidden type `WF(&'a Req)` although it's implied by the impl
//~^ ERROR type parameter Req doesn't live long enough
fn call(req: &'a Req) -> Self::Output {
req
}
}
```
although adding an explicit bound would make it pass:
```diff
- impl<'a, Req> Service<&'a Req> for u8 {
+ impl<'a, Req> Service<&'a Req> for u8 where Req: 'a, {
```
I believe it should pass as we already allow the concrete type to be used:
```diff
impl<'a, Req> Service<&'a Req> for u8 {
- type Output= impl Sized;
+ type Output= &'a Req;
```
Fixes#95922
Builds on #105982
cc ``@lcnr`` (because implied bounds)
r? ``@oli-obk``
Make generics_of has_self on RPITITs delegate to the opaque
r? `@compiler-errors`
I couldn't come up with a test case and none of the ones in the `tests` folder is impacted by this change, but I still think is the right thing to do.
Michael, let me know if you have ideas on how to add a test that's affected by this change.
More robust debug assertions for `Instance::resolve` on built-in traits with non-standard trait items
In #111264, a user added a new item to the `Future` trait, but the code in [`resolve_associated_item`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_ty_utils/instance/fn.resolve_associated_item.html) implicitly assumes that the `Future` trait is defined with only one method (`Future::poll`) and treats the generator body as the implementation of that method.
This PR adds some debug assertions to make sure that that new methods defined on `Future`/`Generator`/etc. don't accidentally resolve to the wrong item when they are added, and adds a helpful comment guiding a compiler dev (or curious `#![no_core]` user) to what must be done to support adding new associated items to these built-in implementations.
I am open to discuss whether a test should be added, but I chose against it because I opted to make these `bug!()`s instead of, e.g., diagnostics or fatal errors. Arguably it doesn't need a test because it's not a bug that can be triggered by an end user, and internal-facing misuses of core kind of touch on rust-lang/compiler-team#620 -- however, I think the assertions I added in this PR are still a very useful way to make sure this bug doesn't waste debugging resources down the line.
Fixes#111264
Currently a `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` can be created from any type that
impls `Into<String>`. That includes `&str`, `String`, and `Cow<'static,
str>`, which are reasonable. It also includes `&String`, which is pretty
weird, and results in many places making unnecessary allocations for
patterns like this:
```
self.fatal(&format!(...))
```
This creates a string with `format!`, takes a reference, passes the
reference to `fatal`, which does an `into()`, which clones the
reference, doing a second allocation. Two allocations for a single
string, bleh.
This commit changes the `From` impls so that you can only create a
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` from `&str`, `String`, or `Cow<'static,
str>`. This requires changing all the places that currently create one
from a `&String`. Most of these are of the `&format!(...)` form
described above; each one removes an unnecessary static `&`, plus an
allocation when executed. There are also a few places where the existing
use of `&String` was more reasonable; these now just use `clone()` at
the call site.
As well as making the code nicer and more efficient, this is a step
towards possibly using `Cow<'static, str>` in
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage::{Str,Eager}`. That would require changing
the `From<&'a str>` impls to `From<&'static str>`, which is doable, but
I'm not yet sure if it's worthwhile.
Add offset_of! macro (RFC 3308)
Implements https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3308 (tracking issue #106655) by adding the built in macro `core::mem::offset_of`. Two of the future possibilities are also implemented:
* Nested field accesses (without array indexing)
* DST support (for `Sized` fields)
I wrote this a few months ago, before the RFC merged. Now that it's merged, I decided to rebase and finish it.
cc `@thomcc` (RFC author)
Add `rustc_fluent_macro` to decouple fluent from `rustc_macros`
Fluent, with all the icu4x it brings in, takes quite some time to compile. `fluent_messages!` is only needed in further downstream rustc crates, but is blocking more upstream crates like `rustc_index`. By splitting it out, we allow `rustc_macros` to be compiled earlier, which speeds up `x check compiler` by about 5 seconds (and even more after the needless dependency on `serde_json` is removed from `rustc_data_structures`).
Fluent, with all the icu4x it brings in, takes quite some time to
compile. `fluent_messages!` is only needed in further downstream rustc
crates, but is blocking more upstream crates like `rustc_index`. By
splitting it out, we allow `rustc_macros` to be compiled earlier, which
speeds up `x check compiler` by about 5 seconds (and even more after the
needless dependency on `serde_json` is removed from
`rustc_data_structures`).
Update `ty::VariantDef` to use `IndexVec<FieldIdx, FieldDef>`
And while doing the updates for that, also uses `FieldIdx` in `ProjectionKind::Field` and `TypeckResults::field_indices`.
There's more places that could use it (like `rustc_const_eval` and `LayoutS`), but I tried to keep this PR from exploding to *even more* places.
Part 2/? of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/606
And while doing the updates for that, also uses `FieldIdx` in `ProjectionKind::Field` and `TypeckResults::field_indices`.
There's more places that could use it (like `rustc_const_eval` and `LayoutS`), but I tried to keep this PR from exploding to *even more* places.
Part 2/? of https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/606
Give return-position impl traits in trait a (synthetic) name to avoid name collisions with new lowering strategy
The only needed commit from this PR is the last one.
r? `@compiler-errors`
Needs #109455.
Since structs are always `VariantIdx(0)`, there's a bunch of files where the only reason they had `VariantIdx` or `vec::Idx` imported at all was to get the first variant.
So this uses a constant for that, and adds some doc-comments to `VariantIdx` while I'm there, since it doesn't have any today.
a general type system cleanup
removes the helper functions `traits::fully_solve_X` as they add more complexity then they are worth. It's confusing which of these helpers should be used in which context.
changes the way we deal with overflow to always add depth in `evaluate_predicates_recursively`. It may make sense to actually fully transition to not have `recursion_depth` on obligations but that's probably a bit too much for this PR.
also removes some other small - and imo unnecessary - helpers.
r? types
